If James Lister has been reported correctly, it seems that he has no use (or is ‘tired of hearing’) expert opinion in relation to the now legislated ‘Adult Crime Adult Time’ Bill (Today, 19 December).
I am dismayed that according to our local representative, his opinion trumps years of research by experts in the field, which clearly demonstrates that harsher penalties do not result in lower crime rates.
Relying on simplistic, populist responses to complex social and legal issues is bound to result in inadequate legislation, engendering more problems that it seeks to solve.
What are the criteria for accepting or disregarding the advice of experts?
According to the article quoting James Lister, vital decisions are made on the basis of whether or not his opinion differs from that of numerous experts, without the apparent need to explain the basis of his decision.
One can only hope that his future decisions will be based on more than his opinion.
Laurel Wilson,
Warwick.
